search_station

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that it returns matching stations with IDs, coordinates, and types, and includes the max_results default. It does not mention limitations like rate limits or search specificity, but for a simple read-only search, it covers the essential behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear introduction, usage note, return summary, and parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the description covering purpose, usage, returns, and parameters, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. No critical information is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed Args explanations, including an example for query and the default for max_results, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches OeBB stations by name, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (station_board, trip_search, service_alerts) by highlighting its role in retrieving station IDs for other tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use this tool to find station IDs needed for other tools, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it misses the top score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.